The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
Henry Irving said:Cafc43v3r said:I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.0 -
1577, The Great Comet can be seen from Earth.0
-
Cafc43v3r said:Henry Irving said:Cafc43v3r said:I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.0 -
RD bundles up debts + club + properties as one package. The whole thing needs to be separated out, under threat of the EFL nuclear option. SL is acquired by not-for-profit but ambitious CACT, using their special status to get soft finance, to take their community development to a whole new level. CAFC becomes their long-term tenant on a peppercorn rent. The club and The Valley are bought out by new, serious investors at the right money, possibly with fans allowed a VIP-style contribution. That leaves RD to swallow his losses. He kicks his bookkeepers in the bollocks, sends LdT back to the factory floor whence he came and finally retires to his new hobby of part-time signwriter. If only.2 -
Cafc43v3r said:Henry Irving said:Cafc43v3r said:I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.But what if we moved to the Peninsula (sorry!) - presumably The Valley would then be ripe for development and likely to get planning permission for residential/commercial/social or a combination of all three.
Ground share with Ebbsfleet (or worse!)? I wouldn't put it past him.
0 -
MuttleyCAFC said:Jordan speculated on Talk Sport that the value was 20 to 30m, but then clarified the next day, saying he had spoken to a few people, and thought it was nearer 50m. What is your information/guess on the figure Airman? I would be interested to know, as well as your confidence in it.
There isn't a reliable way of valuing football clubs - the current assets (players and property) cannot generally be sold for reliable values on the open market, future costs and revenues cannot de determined with any degree of certainty. You really are at the mercy of the egos of the buyers and sellers - unfortunately in our case one of those is RD.0 -
Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:AFKABartram said:PeterGage said:Taxi_Lad said:PeterGage said:Gillis said:PeterGage said:As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
2 -
bobmunro said:Cafc43v3r said:Henry Irving said:Cafc43v3r said:I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.But what if we moved to the Peninsula (sorry!) - presumably The Valley would then be ripe for development and likely to get planning permission for residential/commercial/social or a combination of all three.
Ground share with Ebbsfleet (or worse!)? I wouldn't put it past him.
0 -
PragueAddick said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:AFKABartram said:PeterGage said:Taxi_Lad said:PeterGage said:Gillis said:PeterGage said:As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.0 -
Airman Brown said:bobmunro said:Henry Irving said:VOTV mentions an independent valuation of the land and gives figures for that.
The other assets ie player contracts, league membership and location (is being in London more desirable than Bolton or Wigan for example) are far more difficult to value.I haven't seen the VOTV valuation but it should be the value as current use only - i.e. without planning permission for any other use.In terms of ongoing operations, the club is losing £10m a year so it could be argued that the value of the players' contracts, league membership and 'goodwill' (in very short supply) is offset by the operational losses - unless potential growth (promotion to PL) is taken into account.So club value zero - asset value as a stadium and training ground maybe £20m. A lot more if both sites, especially SL, could be developed, but the chances of that are remote.
Is there really £23m of development potential at the Valley and Sparrows Lane? I have my doubts, their value in continuing use (i.e supporting a loss making entity and little chance of a change in use) and without development potential would be pretty minimal. Isn't this the game the spivs were trying? Unfortunately, I fear they may still be informing his view and I suspect RD's ego is such that he cannot accept that he was done when he originally purchased the club.0 - Sponsored links:
-
bobmunro said:Cafc43v3r said:bobmunro said:Airman Brown said:bobmunro said:Henry Irving said:VOTV mentions an independent valuation of the land and gives figures for that.
The other assets ie player contracts, league membership and location (is being in London more desirable than Bolton or Wigan for example) are far more difficult to value.I haven't seen the VOTV valuation but it should be the value as current use only - i.e. without planning permission for any other use.In terms of ongoing operations, the club is losing £10m a year so it could be argued that the value of the players' contracts, league membership and 'goodwill' (in very short supply) is offset by the operational losses - unless potential growth (promotion to PL) is taken into account.So club value zero - asset value as a stadium and training ground maybe £20m. A lot more if both sites, especially SL, could be developed, but the chances of that are remote.
Then £23m is all the club is worth.
There is an opportunity value in potential future earnings based on the fact that the club is a going concern with an EFL licence and a stadium to play in. My view is that this potential just about mitigates the current operating losses.Tesla haven't made a profit in 15 years yet their market value is $49bn!
1 -
happyvalley said:1576, Dartford Grammar School is founded.3
-
We really don't want owners who see Charlton as a financial transaction - it is something into which they have to invest love and passion if they want a return.
1 -
PragueAddick said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:AFKABartram said:PeterGage said:Taxi_Lad said:PeterGage said:Gillis said:PeterGage said:As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?0 -
Stu_of_Kunming said:PragueAddick said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:AFKABartram said:PeterGage said:Taxi_Lad said:PeterGage said:Gillis said:PeterGage said:As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?0 -
PeterGage said:JamesSeed said:PeterGage said:Taxi_Lad said:PeterGage said:Gillis said:PeterGage said:As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Have no idea if boycotting affects Roland or not, but I think it helped at Blackpool.
0 -
Stu_of_Kunming said:PragueAddick said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:AFKABartram said:PeterGage said:Taxi_Lad said:PeterGage said:Gillis said:PeterGage said:As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?0 -
Scoham said:Stu_of_Kunming said:PragueAddick said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:AFKABartram said:PeterGage said:Taxi_Lad said:PeterGage said:Gillis said:PeterGage said:As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?
Losing both CBs would be awesome, we really, really need to win The play offs!0 -
Henry Irving said:Stu_of_Kunming said:PragueAddick said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:AFKABartram said:PeterGage said:Taxi_Lad said:PeterGage said:Gillis said:PeterGage said:As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?0 -
JamesSeed said:PeterGage said:JamesSeed said:PeterGage said:Taxi_Lad said:PeterGage said:Gillis said:PeterGage said:As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
Have no idea if boycotting affects Roland or not, but I think it helped at Blackpool.
There are plenty of crap owners out there unfortunately.2 - Sponsored links:
-
charltonkeston said:guinnessaddick said:dajavouslagan said:Well if 65 million is what his after then we are screwed. No one will pay that even if we do get promoted! Feeling despondent!0
-
sm said:We really don't want owners who see Charlton as a financial transaction - it is something into which they have to invest love and passion if they want a return.
Wigan, to take a recent example have now been taken over by Hong Kong investors, I doubt they're doing it because they love the club or town.0 -
CatAddick said:Cafc43v3r said:Henry Irving said:Cafc43v3r said:I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
This happened at Tottenham a few years back with a dispute of neighbouring business
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30195756
0 -
Henry Irving said:iamdan said:How do I get a copy of the VOTV please?1
-
killerandflash said:sm said:We really don't want owners who see Charlton as a financial transaction - it is something into which they have to invest love and passion if they want a return.
Wigan, to take a recent example have now been taken over by Hong Kong investors, I doubt they're doing it because they love the club or town.1 -
Can I safely say that we are back to “It’s not happening or it’s not imminent “?2
-
fadgadget said:CatAddick said:Cafc43v3r said:Henry Irving said:Cafc43v3r said:I have no idea of the answer to this question, I am sure someone will be able to answer it.
The common assumption, which I am sure is correct, is that there is next to chance of getting planning permission to build residential/commercial developments on the site of the Valley and/or Sparrows Lane.
How would the council etc veiw a change of use if there was no occupation of either site? A football ground with no football team is hardly a asset of community value.
All other things being equal the Valley would be seen as a good opportunity for more social and commercial housing in Greenwich, which would be part of their overall plan.
But, and it is a big but ,politically it would be very inadvisable. Other local residents may not want more housing (although some would no doubt prefer this to 25+ home games a season.
Local businesses wouldn't be happy, the borough would lose an employer and a company that brings a lot of "customers" into the borough.
Any planning application would be fought and the shadow of the Valley Party would loom large.
The football club and Trust as seen as important benefits to the area.
This happened at Tottenham a few years back with a dispute of neighbouring business
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-301957560 -
X0
-
Henry Irving said:Stu_of_Kunming said:PragueAddick said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Airman Brown said:AFKABartram said:PeterGage said:Taxi_Lad said:PeterGage said:Gillis said:PeterGage said:As a boycotter, I rarely watch Charlton these days. I watched the game yesterday on TV and thought they played really well; far better than 3 years ago before I ceased attending. However I find it incomprehensibly that supporters can put money in Roly's pocket at 3pm on a Saturday and then trash him on CL at 1705pm and indeed any other time...just my opinion.An opinion you (and others) have aired many, many times before, which inevitably leads to the same debate, with the same entrenched positions.I'm not sure it's productive for people on either side of this issue to keep raising it, but people inevitably will. I can't be the only person that's a little tired of it now.
A so called Charlton fan who has not watched “us” for 3 years and after watching this game refers to the team as “them”
You can put your own definition on the word "supporter". I dont have any need to justify my interpretation.
Have a good day.
And I also understand your argument. Indeed I never renewed my season ticket a couple of seasons ago as I too felt a fraud through protesting and then paying my money.
But with one side of your argument there are also other sides.
Would you not equally agree that that £25 that ‘lines Roland’s pockets’ also goes towards paying Lyle Taylor’s wages, Josh Cullen and Bielik’s loan fees, and the wages of everyone of those players that busted an absolute gut in our shirt on Saturday?
That it pays Tracey Leaburn’s wages and a whole host of long serving staff that have been here long before Roland and who many equally can’t stand what he’s done to the club?
That if more people paid their £25 than currently are the club would have a better chance of securing Joe Aribo as a Charlton player for the next 3 years?
And finally, that the badge, The Valley and heart and spirit of being ‘Charlton’ is so much more than a distant overseas man that currently owns it at this specific point in time?
It’s never straight forward and there is no convincing argument either way imo. I can’t only speak for myself and say I got back back into it and I am so so pleased that I did as I’ve loved seeing the commitment and football played by our players, particularly since Bowyer has taken over.
Would anyone other than Taylor command a fee?
{weird}0